STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. RADNIK EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the order dated 14.1.2011 passed in OA No. 345/2009 by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) II, Delhi whereby the application IA No. 376/2010 filed by the respondents for the recall of the order dated 31.12.2009 has been allowed and the order has been recalled. The facts on record indicate that the appellant Bank had filed the said OA for the recovery of certain amount from the respondents and the DRT while issuing notice on that OA on 31.12.2009 directed the respondents to appear in person on 4.01.2010 and disclose their assets on affidavit. This order was reconfirmed after the respondents appeared through their Counsel on that date. The respondents filed application IA No. 376/2010 on 27.4.2010 for recalling the order dated 31.12.2009, which has been allowed by the DRT by the impugned order dated 14.1.2011 and the order dated 31.12.2009 has been recalled. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank has filed this appeal.

(2.) MR . Navneet Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the review application (I.A. No. 376/2010) was time -barred as it was filed after about four months of the order dated 31.12.2009, whereas under Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the period of limitation for the review application is only 60 days from the date of order, He further contended that neither the respondents filed any application for condonation of delay nor they gave any explanation as to why the review application could not be filed within the aforesaid period of limitation. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered on 2.5.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 7253/2011, Inderjeet Arya and Anr. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. in support of his contention. The Hon'ble Court, while considering the issue of limitation qua filing of the review application, has held that Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 gives leeway to DRT to entertain an application for review only if it is filed latest by 60th day from the date of the order of which the review is sought and since there is an express bar imposed under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 5A on the DRT in entertaining the review application after the expiry of 60 days, there is no scope for entertaining that application for review beyond that period.

(3.) HE also contended that as the loan in question was unsecured, the DRT, besides requiring the defendants to appear in person and give details of their properties/personal assets on affidavit, on the request of the appellant, had also issued notices, under Section 19(12) of the RDDBFI Act, to them to show cause as to why their properties be not attached for which the DRT was fully competent, therefore, the order dated 31.12.2009 was rightly passed and its recall in its entirety was unwarranted.